ozleicester Posted 10 March 2010 Posted 10 March 2010 How many decisions should be put to the 4th-5th-6th.... 31thousandth official. kick off.... did the ball completely go over the line? first tackle... did he push.. did the other hold? 1st throw in.. was it taken exactly where it went out?....... i could spend forever writing this. In simple terms..... A referee makes 1000's of decisions in each game, and each and every one of them will affect the outcome of the match.
Shrenchel Posted 10 March 2010 Posted 10 March 2010 Cmon guys, these scousers can't afford goalline technology. Stop trying to create a two-tier system. The game is for everyone yeah.
lcfc_jme Posted 10 March 2010 Posted 10 March 2010 Goal-line technology would be awesome. However, if we're going to take away the uncertainty of human-error in decision-making, maybe we could change the shape of the ball to make its bounce unpredictable to compensate? And perhaps we could also give our teams quality 2nd names like "Warriors", "Wildcats", "Wasps" or my personal favourite - "Tigers" - instead of the usual boring old "Town", "United" and "City" which we currently have! Oh, and points should be awarded for losing as well, because it should not all just be about the winning; the taking part aspect should be important still as well...y'know, in the interests of fairness and enjoyment and all that?
Guest Posted 10 March 2010 Posted 10 March 2010 Again, how many of these decisions arise during the season? Ooh, just as they voted against it, a controversial decision is made. Tough shit.
Wycombe Fox Posted 2 March 2012 Posted 2 March 2012 This must be a Sepp Blatter impersonator speaking today We don't want a repeat of the last World Cup. After experiences in last week, in Italy, I think I can convince the IFAB board that we must go forward with technology, we cannot afford to just wait and see what happens. Sense? From Sepp Blatter? In the words of Victor Meldrew "I don't believe it"
Haydos Posted 3 March 2012 Posted 3 March 2012 Please no more technology, the ref makes the decisions, you win some, you lose some. The introduction of Technology is just about placating the international betting syndicates. We may never have won a world cup if there was technology. (by the same token the "hand of dog" incident would be a whole lot different), still, you win some, you lose some. 1) Players, shut up and accept the refs decision! 2) Managers, shut up and accept the refs decision! 3) Owners, shut up and accept the refs decision! 4) Supporters, scream and yell all you like, thats what you pay for. If we bring in technology, we may as well play the game on Wii. suppose , this is kind of a good thing, these incidents that would be cleared up by technology are what make the game interesting, the controversy gives fans things to chat about in the pub, people to blame when things are going badly. Personally i wouldn't like to see football end up like (older) FIFA/PES/FM games where every single desicion is right THe game would be far too boring. Still many teams have been badly affected by these desisions but you can't please everyone and perhaps just the extra refs (like in the Europa League) are a good enough compremise. Shouldn't be brought in, I'm sure I'll want it if there's a blatant goal not given for us but it will slow the game down and once goal-line is introduced then we'll have offsides, free-kicks etc. I can see why there are calls for it but at the moment we should stay as we are. Bullshit. Sorry, but there are so many arguments against all of these things. 1) Slowing the game down. You play until the ball goes dead then you make a decision. (Ironically) It'll take too long to look this up but I believe the ball is out of play for around 30 minutes of a 90 minute game (I did some research as part of a uni project and I think it was actually more than this but I can't be quoted). How much difference is a 30-60 second decision (It will be shorter than rugby on average because there is usually a clear cut angle as opposed to rugby when there are often several players in the way/on top of the ball and the decision is still made within a couple of minutes). 2) Keeping the game 'interesting, How often does this happen? Maybe 10 times a season? During 38 games per team? How dull do you think this could make 'the game'? How much of a viewing effect do you think it's going to have? DO you think that one decision is going to be made one weekend and you're going to say the next night in the pub..."mate....I have no idea what to talk about, NOTHING happened this weeked."...because one decision was made using technology? 3) Other decisions.One step at a time. This is one thing. GOAL-LINE technology. It's for goals only, nothing else. If, in the future, people want to implement other sorts of artificial assistance then I may well be against it but goal line technology is crucial to the improvement of the game. As well as being basic it is quick and genuinely objective rather that subjective.
theessexfox Posted 15 March 2014 Posted 15 March 2014 How are people feeling about the goalline technology now it's been introduced? Another correct decision given today, in not awarding the goal to Zabaleta in the Man City vs Hull game. Anyone who was originally against it changed their minds?
Fox92 Posted 15 March 2014 Posted 15 March 2014 Did that Zabaleta chance get referred to technology? Think it was clear at first sight that it didn't cross the line. I was against technology and as it is at the minute, it's ok. I just don't want to get to a time where people want it used for everything.
Haydos Posted 15 March 2014 Posted 15 March 2014 Did that Zabaleta chance get referred to technology? Think it was clear at first sight that it didn't cross the line. I was against technology and as it is at the minute, it's ok. I just don't want to get to a time where people want it used for everything. It doesn't get 'referred', it just alerts the ref if it crosses the line.
Heart-Shaped Fox Posted 15 March 2014 Posted 15 March 2014 What else would 'goal line technology' be used for in a match?!
Fox92 Posted 15 March 2014 Posted 15 March 2014 It doesn't get 'referred', it just alerts the ref if it crosses the line. Didn't realise; makes sense then. What else would 'goal line technology' be used for in a match?! I was just referring to 'technology' without the 'goal line' part.
Heart-Shaped Fox Posted 15 March 2014 Posted 15 March 2014 Ok I'll let you off. From what I've seen this goal line looks very good
The Year Of The Fox Posted 16 March 2014 Posted 16 March 2014 Did that Zabaleta chance get referred to technology? Think it was clear at first sight that it didn't cross the line. I was against technology and as it is at the minute, it's ok. I just don't want to get to a time where people want it used for everything. have you seen the replays? The ball was on the line. Without the technology it possibly would've been given
Jimothy Posted 16 March 2014 Posted 16 March 2014 Just watching last nights MOTD and the Heitinga shot is the that shows the value of this technology. To the naked eye it looked over the line, but a tiny part of the ball hadn't crossed the line, and the correct decision was reached. There's no referring it to anyone, just the ref gets an automatic signal once a goal is scored, so the game flows, there's no stop start. You can see players aren't claiming so much anymore too, so they are getting used to it,
Unabomber Posted 16 March 2014 Posted 16 March 2014 It's annoying when a goal is clearly over the line but they still show the technology.
Jimothy Posted 16 March 2014 Posted 16 March 2014 It's annoying when a goal is clearly over the line but they still show the technology. You mean like Gallagher for Southampton yesterday. Miles over the line.
Unabomber Posted 16 March 2014 Posted 16 March 2014 You mean like Gallagher for Southampton yesterday. Miles over the line. Yeah. If we can clearly see it there is no need to go to the technology just to show us something we knew anyway.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.